"Recently, we signed a contract with the Fly-Away Pest Control Company to provide pest control services at our warehouse in Palm City, but last month we discovered that over $20,000 worth of food there had been destroyed by pest damage. Meanwhile, the Buzzoff Pest Control Company, which we have used for many years in Palm City, continued to service our warehouse in Wintervale, and last month only $10,000 worth of the food stored there had been destroyed by pest damage. Even though the price charged by Fly-Away is considerably lower, our best means of saving money is to return to Buzzoff for all our pest control services."
The author suggested receding the contract with Fly-Away Pest Control Company (FAPC) due to the increase of destroyed food so that back to the contract with Buzzoff Company (BC), which they had used for many years. While the reasons in the paragraph above seem very persuasive at first sight, they cannot stand firmly after being considering it twice and lack of assumptions and evidence.
According to the author, the comparison between FAPC and BC took place in different town of Palm City based on one month's record, which is very questionable for lacking evidence of the sizes of the two warehouse, the types of the food had been stored, and the weather between these two areas. Each of the information is importance barometer to evaluate the effects of these two companies. However, the author did not mention any of them. Take the weather for example, if the warehouse in Palm city withstood a flooding season while the Wintervale had mild and dry weather in the month, considering the humid weather continued for over 20 days in a month then the author should appraise the FAPC instead of blaming them for $20,000 lost. Furthermore, they should consider firing BC.
On the other hand, the author underscored the years that they have been using BC to indicate that they should trust BC, which is unfair to FAPC for lacking the evidence that can confirm it is not as good as BC. Although the company that used for a long time is easy to rely on, it can not guarantee it is the better partner in the business field. The author incline to point they cooperate history with BC then suggest back to contract is unappropriate. To be more convincing, the author should provide more evidence and analysis on the BU’s better performance in the past instead only listing vague impression that “many years”. Also, the author should mention about why they change to FAPC from BC in the last time and their expectation to FAPC. For instance, if the warehouse in Palm City contains tons of food that easy to attract the pest and they expect the loss in each month is lower than 50,000 dollars, then there is no complaint should give to FAPC.
Therefore, considering the fair compare with the FAPC and the BU’s pest prevention efficiency. Only one month’s lost data care far from making a conclusion the BC precede the FAPC. To make the right decision, the author should provide data including local areas’ weather, type of foods, the pest conditions in each warehouse, and the size of the two warehouses. Also, to convince the reader that the BC is
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Minimum 3 arguments wanted.
------------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 442 350
No. of Characters: 2050 1500
No. of Different Words: 212 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.585 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.638 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.394 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 130 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 99 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 62 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 40 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 26 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 14.013 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.647 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.335 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.512 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.097 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, furthermore, however, if, so, then, therefore, while, for example, for instance, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.6327345309 71% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 28.8173652695 87% => OK
Preposition: 61.0 55.5748502994 110% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2132.0 2260.96107784 94% => OK
No of words: 442.0 441.139720559 100% => OK
Chars per words: 4.82352941176 5.12650576532 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.58517132086 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.55069603141 2.78398813304 92% => OK
Unique words: 218.0 204.123752495 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.493212669683 0.468620217663 105% => OK
syllable_count: 636.3 705.55239521 90% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.59920159681 88% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 22.8473053892 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 77.247322212 57.8364921388 134% => OK
Chars per sentence: 125.411764706 119.503703932 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.0 23.324526521 111% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.52941176471 5.70786347227 114% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.160219013949 0.218282227539 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0511338856146 0.0743258471296 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0673145019092 0.0701772020484 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.115974435066 0.128457276422 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0558647295087 0.0628817314937 89% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.3 14.3799401198 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 62.01 48.3550499002 128% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.97 12.5979740519 87% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.28 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 94.0 98.500998004 95% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 18.0 12.3882235529 145% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.1389221557 111% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.